Very cool stuff. I'd like to get some insight from some of the more knowledgable economic posters here.

Does that address the millions who have stopped looking for work because there are no jobs? The millions of young people who graduated and now can't find a job, even in good professions?

It seems like the administration wants to make abstract cases for their economic record because they can't talk about the actual consequences of the last 4 years. The average person doesn't know what the GDP is, but they know their husband has been on unemployment benefits for months, and that their neighbor can't find work to. If Romney runs a halfway decent campaign he'll be able to reach those people

Does that address the millions who have stopped looking for work because there are no jobs? The millions of young people who graduated and now can't find a job, even in good professions?

It seems like the administration wants to make abstract cases for their economic record because they can't talk about the actual consequences of the last 4 years. The average person doesn't know what the GDP is, but they know their husband has been on unemployment benefits for months, and that their neighbor can't find work to. If Romney runs a halfway decent campaign he'll be able to reach those people

Very cool stuff. I'd like to get some insight from some of the more knowledgable economic posters here.

I think all of the information is interesting. It's just that some of it, for me, counts as arguments against Obama (assuming we are assigning responsibility for all of this data to him). For example, nobody cares (or should care) if corporate profits are up. That might only mean that workers' wages are down (and they are). That's not a good thing. Likewise, that "discretionary spending is now on a path to its lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration" is something to be lamented, not celebrated. That is something political conservatives should be proud of, not progressives. It also seems to be presenting shrinking public employment as a positive, which, of course, it is not. That means fewer people have jobs than otherwise would. Likewise, touting the president's budget as having cut the deficit and stabilized the debt may be politically advantageous, but only because it preys upon the country's economic ignorance. Cutting spending (and/or raising taxes) now may be exactly what throws the country back into recession. And debt is virtually economically irrelevant. These are conservative talking points, not progressive ones.

The House Republican version of the new Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would dramatically roll back confidentiality protections for abused immigrant women, make it more difficult for undocumented witnesses to work with law enforcement officials, and eliminate a pathway to citizenship for witnesses who cooperate with police on criminal cases.

I think all of the information is interesting. It's just that some of it, for me, counts as arguments against Obama (assuming we are assigning responsibility for all of this data to him). For example, nobody cares (or should care) if corporate profits are up. That might only mean that workers' wages are down (and they are). That's not a good thing. Likewise, that "discretionary spending is now on a path to its lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration" is something to be lamented, not celebrated. That is something political conservatives should be proud of, not progressives. It also seems to be presenting shrinking public employment as a positive, which, of course, it is not. That means fewer people have jobs than otherwise would. Likewise, touting the president's budget as having cut the deficit and stabilized the debt may be politically advantageous, but only because it preys upon the country's economic ignorance. Cutting spending (and/or raising taxes) now may be exactly what throws the country back into recession. And debt is virtually economically irrelevant. These are conservative talking points, not progressive ones.

I think it's just a matter of the administration covering all their bases. There are some right-leaning independents that might view this and like what they see in those particular areas, and lean Obama thusly.

I think all of the information is interesting. It's just that some of it, for me, counts as arguments against Obama (assuming we are assigning responsibility for all of this data to him). For example, nobody cares (or should care) if corporate profits are up. That might only mean that workers' wages are down (and they are). That's not a good thing. Likewise, that "discretionary spending is now on a path to its lowest level since the Eisenhower Administration" is something to be lamented, not celebrated. That is something political conservatives should be proud of, not progressives. It also seems to be presenting shrinking public employment as a positive, which, of course, it is not. That means fewer people have jobs than otherwise would. Likewise, touting the president's budget as having cut the deficit and stabilized the debt may be politically advantageous, but only because it preys upon the country's economic ignorance. Cutting spending (and/or raising taxes) now may be exactly what throws the country back into recession. And debt is virtually economically irrelevant. These are conservative talking points, not progressive ones.

The reason for those things are twofold:

1) Obama isn't a progressive. As much as you and I would love that, he isn't. At best he's a center right politician, and that's why these things are the way they are. As much as people on the far right want to say he's a socialist, these things prove in no way, shape or form is that true.

2) I've seen for the last year or so at least he's had a very heavy effort to frame things in conservative ways first, and then expound on them. I noticed it first in his last State of the Union Address. That might be because of point 1, obviously, but I think it also has other reasons. I think he's doing this because it makes the far right even crazier. They look even worse to independents, because of this. It forces Romney to either not confront the issue or to go even further right and alienate more people. The "Obama is bad for business" sorts of stuff start to look silly if Obama can tout that corporate profits are up. Public employment and discretionary spending at a low level should also definitely be touted by him if they are indeed true, because, again, it makes the conservative argument that he's growing the government look downright crazy.

Really, guys? You wanna play the attendee game? Sure, there was still a good chunk of seats left, but Romney would have killed for those numbers compared to what he got in Wisconsin.

"You guys laughed at Romney for having a few dozen attendees when Obama only managed to get in the range of 10 thousand! Who's incompetent NOW, HUH?!??"

It reeks of Rove's "turn their strengths into weaknesses" mixed with false equivalencies. If Romney got 5k in the same venue they would argue both events were equally successful/not successful because both didn't sell out

It reeks of Rove's "turn their strengths into weaknesses" mixed with false equivalencies. If Romney got 5k in the same venue they would argue both events were equally successful/not successful because both didn't sell out

Yup. The only thing I'll give em is the fact that I agree Obama should have been able to have the whole stadium packed and more. The Chairman's ability to gather crowds SHOULD be second to none.

It reeks of Rove's "turn their strengths into weaknesses" mixed with false equivalencies. If Romney got 5k in the same venue they would argue both events were equally successful/not successful because both didn't sell out

What? I don't understand this post. How is what you're saying here bad for Obama?

Indiana senate: An interesting contrast to have between Joe Donnelly (D) and Richard Mourdock (R).

Hoosiers support the auto bailout 51-44, while Mourdock was the only public official in the country to challenge it in court. Donnelly's already started getting on him about it, so this could provide a pretty crucial issue in the campaign.

Winning Indiana will still be tough for any Democrat, but it's nice that Donnelly seems to be hitting the right notes. The auto bailout isn't as unpopular as previously thought and the results were better than expected. I think Donnelly's appeal will make him viable to the populist, middle-class "sensible" conservatism that exists in Indiana and the Midwest in general, and that flipped the state in 08 for Obama.

Also is pd really trying to say Obama can't get anyone to turn out to his rallies? lol christ What a desperate man.

Ah that one. It might not necessarily be a troll post. I mean if it is true the campaign was expecting or wanting overflow and didn't get that, then it is a little lackluster. And if it doesn't compare to 2008 then, again, a bit lackluster. I think equating that to saying he can't get anyone to come out is kind of silly.

I really think you guys give PD a bit of a hard time. I mean he does have some funny troll posts, but I don't see what's wrong with some of the things he's posting.

yeah, it wasn't packed because the Schott is a really shitty venue for this sort of event

all of the lower seating and a good portion of the upper seating was still completely full

It is also May. Not a lot of draw to go to a campaign event for the default Dem nominee in May. It is not like there is a vote coming up soon. Mitt got smaller crowds while in the midst of a contentious primary battle.

Two convicted killers and a third dangerous criminal broke out of a medium security private prison facility in Kingman Arizona in July 2010.

The escapees were eventually caught after a nationwide manhunt, but not before an Oklahoma couple was killed.

The escape and murders that followed raised some serious questions about private prison safety standards and whether new policies should be put in place to prevent prison breaks from happening again.

Two years later, Arizona lawmakers have decided to go in a different direction.

Buried in the $8.6 billion budget proposal passed at the state Capitol this week is a plan to "eliminate the requirement for a quality and cost review of private prison contracts."

It means there would no longer be an annual review of how private prisons operate.

That study found that in some cases private prisons cost taxpayers more than state-run facilities.

"Some people are saying we are not reviewing private prisons," said Kavanaugh. "That's not true. Every private prison we have has standards and requires DOC on-site inspectors be present at every prison to make sure it is run properly."

Campbell and other Democrats claim there's more to it, suggesting that by getting rid of the data on private prisons that show how expensive they are, will simply make it easier to get more built in the future, said Campbell.

"This is what I believe is a hand out to private prison corporations operating in Arizona right now," Campbell said.

In California these notices went out thus week that notifies anyone who qualified for the final tier FedED UI extension (weeks 79-99) are ending as of May 12. Even if you have benefits left they are being terminated so someone who just started week 79 and was expecting to have up to 20 more weeks of UI is ending now. That is a maximum of 9,000$ in benefits over 5 months.

The state estimates that this will effect over 90,000 unemployed Californians (though no data was given on the average number of expected weeks are getting terminated for these individuals)

The obsession among right wing politicians with privatization of security is frightening.

I think with the current sway that money and corporations have upon our government the swing to private prisons is in a whole realm beyond frightening. The fact that what would or could be in their best interest, and the things that they would likely push through our government could literally be at odds with society as a whole is nothing short of horrifying.

I think with the current sway that money and corporations have upon our government the swing to private prisons is in a whole realm beyond frightening. The fact that what would or could be in their best interest, and the things that they would likely push through our government could literally be at odds with society as a whole is nothing short of horrifying.

You thought the "tough on crime/ weak on crime" shtick of the 80s and 90s was bad. Wait until you have prison industrial complex superPACs blanketing the airwaives with FUD about criminals and hard sentencing tactics like mandatory minimums and "three strikes" style laws.

It will be in their interest to increase incarcirations, length and severity of sentences all at taxpayer expense.

I think with the current sway that money and corporations have upon our government the swing to private prisons is in a whole realm beyond frightening. The fact that what would or could be in their best interest, and the things that they would likely push through our government could literally be at odds with society as a whole is nothing short of horrifying.

Of course it can happen with public prisons as well. The California Correctional Officer Union is a bit too powerful and can also cause bad policy.

Can we also privatize the military. Then we can support the troops real proper like.

Anyway, Real Time's panel was great this episode going after the Giuliani flack for saying that Obama's the most radical, leftist president ever. But one thing I wish they caught was when she kept saying that the individual mandate was a creation of the left and that Nancy Pelosi (!) had to pull Obama into supporting that to get the HCR bill passed? Wtf?

After introducing his first guests, Matthews said, "Today’s jobs report was a mixed bag of course. 115,000 jobs were added to payrolls in April. The unemployment rate did drop to 8.1 percent, the lowest rate since President Obama took office."

No!

As the following chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics clearly shows, the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when Obama was sworn in.

However, as Inauguration Day is January 20, most people consider a new president's starting point as far as jobs are concerned to be that January's number. As such, Obama's term began with unemployment at 7.8 percent.

We of course are used to liberal media members distorting economic data for this president's benefit.

But to falsely say unemployment is now at "the lowest rate since" Obama took office is either the height of ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

Sadly, this is pretty commonplace on this so-called "news network" these days.

Any Mormons here or know any freinds or family who are excited about a possible Mormon president?

I have a Mormon classmate from a smaller town, though he's pretty liberal and claims he doesn't really buy into everything the "old guys back home" push (i.e. the multiple wives).

He's pretty apathetic about the possibility of a Mormon president, saying that "Romney's Mormonism" isn't the same as "My childhood Mormonism."

So he basically says it wouldn't really affect his home church's practices either way if Obama or Romney won, they'd continue on doing what they want. In the end, that's probably true of a lot of religious towns; they'll do their own thing and keep out of the national eye.

Any Mormons here or know any freinds or family who are excited about a possible Mormon president?

Eh, if he lived by mormon practices more often I would be more excited but he doesn't seem to have much interest in caring for the poor or sick and instead caters only to the wealthy and the bootstrap crowd. I was excited in 2008. The man who passed HealthCare legislation in Massachusetts, raised taxes when needed, had a balanced budget, closed tax loopholes for many, and so on became a blundering fool.

Not an expert but after looking at the slides side by side, it seems like they just print screened the images and used them in their version yes. At least I'm guessing that because there seems to be jpeg compression or what is it called. It just looks very similar to how something would look when you print screened it and then pasted it somewhere else. Frames are exactly the same besides that.

Not an expert but after looking at the slides side by side, it seems like they just print screened the images and used them in their version yes. At least I'm guessing that because there seems to be jpeg compression or what is it called. It just looks very similar to how something would look when you print screened it and then pasted it somewhere else. Frames are exactly the same besides that.

From Obama's site. Copyright? lol what is that!?!

Copyright and Limited License
Unless otherwise indicated in the Sites, the Sites and all content and other materials on the Sites, including, without limitation, OFA's logo, and all designs, text, graphics, pictures, information, data, software, tools, widgets, sound files, other files and the selection and arrangement thereof (collectively, the "Site Materials") are the proprietary property of OFA or its licensors or users and are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

You are granted a limited, non-sublicensable license to access and use the Sites and the Site Materials for your informational, non-commercial and personal use only. Such license is subject to these Terms of Service and does not include: (a) any resale or commercial use of the Sites or the Site Materials therein; (b) the reproduction, distribution, public performance or public display of any Site Materials, except as expressly permitted on the Site; (c) modifying or otherwise making any derivative uses of the Sites and the Site Materials, or any portion thereof; (d) use of any data mining, robots or similar data gathering or extraction methods; (e) downloading (other than the page caching) of any portion of the Sites, the Site Materials or any information contained therein, except as expressly permitted on the Sites; or (f) any use of the Sites or the Site Materials other than for its intended purpose. Any use of the Sites or the Site Materials other than as specifically authorized herein, without the prior written permission of OFA, is strictly prohibited and will terminate the license granted herein. Such unauthorized use may also violate applicable laws including without limitation copyright and trademark laws and applicable communications regulations and statutes. Unless explicitly stated herein, nothing in these Terms of Service shall be construed as conferring any license to intellectual property rights, whether by estoppel, implication or otherwise. This license is revocable at any time.

Repeat Infringer Policy
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable law, OFA has adopted a policy of terminating, in appropriate circumstances as determined by OFA in its sole discretion, subscribers or account holders who are deemed to be repeat infringers. OFA may also at its sole discretion limit access to the Sites and/or terminate the accounts of any users who infringe any intellectual property rights of others, whether or not there is any repeat infringement.